We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
1. They are treated as appellate court lawyers who have never been to a trial.
2. They have middlemen who bring in cases from the rural districts.
3. Their scope of work is far, far narrower.
4. They don't belong to the city.
5. They don't have any traditions.
6. They are outsiders so as to speak.
Granted, these are all classist, and a relic of the colonial times. Lawyers leaving bombay for kolphapur shows this. In no way am I supporting the OS looking down upon the AS, but just listed down the reasons. IMO there is no reason to look down upon the AS. The AS has produced alot of great lawyers too. While I can't say for Bom, in Cal, the AS produced Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee, hia grandson Chittatosh Mukherjee, CJ of Cal and Bom HCs, Manoj Mukherjee, J of SC, and many many more..
Call me what you want, but this ▮▮▮ came off as shallow and completely disingenuous to me...
A spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation commented that "Wikipedia's knowledge is – and always will be – human. [...] This human-created knowledge is what AI companies rely on to generate content; even Grokipedia needs Wikipedia to exist."[28][29]
Larry Sanger, co-founder and noted critic of Wikipedia, responded to the launch of Grokipedia saying, "The jury's still out as to whether it's actually better than Wikipedia. But at this point I would have to say 'maybe!'"[50] Sanger also noted that while the Grokipedia article on himself offered correct and interesting content not found in the corresponding Wikipedia article, it also contained errors, including hallucinated statements about Sanger that he said he did "not recognize as applying in any way to myself".[51] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales commented that the use of large language models would cause Grokipedia to contain "massive errors".[52]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokipedia
Ofc it was all for courtesies, respect and the spiel.
AM, SAK, RG, VP have been EC veterans. PIB wanted them in for obvious reasons.
▮▮▮ is definitely making a comeback because her complaint against NKC got a degree of recognition from EC. So who are going to fill the three slots?
But the point is that students should get a seat inside. Then again despite the eventual NKC exit the shenanigans of the SJA doesn't inspire confidence.
I know a few of HC and District court seniors who even don't know which act will apply to which situation, and they're having Chauffeur driven cars.
Law isn't the most important thing in this profession, may be the least important!
But are there genuinely no practitioners who actually want someone knowledgeable to join their chambers?
Honestly, I feel that at least at the fresher level, there must be many advocates and seniors with years of solid practice and experience who would take on juniors simply to maintain workflow (even if they pay very little). Do they also only care about contacts? Does no one value merit and knowledge anymore?
It’s genuinely disturbing if this is how chamber recruitments are made. Let's take the example of Yuvraj Singh, he’s retired from cricket, but even after retirement, he’s coaching players like Shubman Gill and Abhishek Sharma, passing on his knowledge and expertise to the next generation. I know it’s not the perfect analogy, but it captures my point: there must be some good seniors and advocates who actually want juniors to learn, work hard, and develop discipline for the future of the fraternity, and in that case atleast they would be seeking merit based interviews? Or is even that is a fairly tale dream?
I’m not saying they do it out of affection or respect for their juniors. Regardless of how they treat them, their ultimate goal is to ensure that both they and their juniors get better at what they do.
If such advocates exist, and I believe they do, then the question raised by the OP becomes valid. The previous answers only focused on the “contacts” aspect, which may answer point 5, but there are other important points worth discussing.
Do no advocates or chambers conduct interviews to assess a candidate’s knowledge before taking them on? If not, that’s a really deplorable situation. In that case, the coming gen should genuinely flood in-house & law firms; at least there, recruitment is structured and somewhat merit-based, with a payment at which you can eat something everyday without thinking of maintaining budget till end of month.
And to be clear, I’m not saying it’s the senior’s job to teach anyone. This is a profession built on practice, and everyone has to develop their own skills and knowledge. But there surely must be some good chambers with enough work to give young individuals exposure when they’re just starting out in litigation. In such cases, the question raised by the OP remains perfectly valid.
1. Black Doves.
2. Treason.
3. Adolescence.
4. Operation Mincemeat.
Other shows (both American) that also hit your criteria:
1. Designated Survivor (health warning: very long) (but going into a really fascinating U.S. constitutional law hypothetical).
2. Zero Day.
For context, I’m particularly drawn to series that are prominently British, "not" for the accent, but for the precision and eloquence in their language. I also really enjoyed The Spy and similar political thrillers.
Given that this is a legal forum and most of us barely get an hour of free time on weekends, I think recommendations for shows that are genuinely exciting, smart, and thought-provoking would be valuable. Ideally, something that’s not just entertaining but also offers a bit of substance, like political insight, moral conflict, or intellectual tension.
Personally, I look for series that feel “full,” meaning they pack good writing, tension, and realism into limited screen time.
So, if anyone has suggestions for gripping, intelligent shows or films be it British or otherwise, please share them here. I could’ve asked my team, but they barely watch anything (which is… mildly concerning).
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/446490-JSA-Bill-Share-2025
That was pretty standard until 2023, hearing rumours it's going to be 18L for 2026 batch
This is uniform across all offices, all practice areas (not sure about disputes)
1. The CA angle- CAs are skilled professionals, especially in tax but a tax lawyer is not just a tax professional. There are many ancillary documents and agreements you need to know how to draft in order to do effective tax planning and this skill is lacking in CAs. Moreover when it comes to litigation, CAs tend to focus on each and every small detail that might help them so that they somehow get the relief from courts from their clients but in the process they focus less on drafting with precision and poise and rather focus on points in favour. Furthermore, the CAs are also lacking the evidence angle in search cases which makes them unsuitable in certain situations. But nevertheless as they dominate the profession and practice , they are in a position where the sheer quantity of CAs and their practice methods becomes the norm and hence heavy drafting without precision and unconnected points being on record is the norm. There is so much clutter in the tax litigation which makes it look daunting while in reality it isn't. (A lawyer can become a CA as well but a CA cannot become a lawyer unless he completely submits himself to the jealous mistress.) So to partly answer your question, YES, tax is not a lucrative career option for those who are not practicing it the way it is meant to be practiced.
2. Location- Mumbai is the best place to practice tax because of the number of cases and opportunities in advisory work but again 80% of this work is with CA firms. Second best options are Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad. For learning the craft you need to join a good senior (not necessarily a designated sr adv), whether he/she is a lawyer or CA , it doesn't matter. Tax survives on logic all alone and in order to present the logic there must be clarity of thought and precision. But clutter is sometimes necessary to shroud the logic for pass through purposes. You will find good seniors in Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore but be advised you cannot judge them from afar. You'll have to work with everyone for atleast 2 months each to adjudge whether they can teach you anything or just force you to mug up the sections from ITA or CGST. So interning is the key, but the actual learning will only start when you join a senior for full time atleast for 2 to 3 years. But in your case as you have mentioned you are keen to reside in Delhi so you can look for seniors specifically in Delhi
3. Knowledge building- Tax is an specialised field. Start reading from the day you decide to enter taxation and never stop ever. Apart from this re brush yourself with the fundamentals of economics, accounts, and commerce. Focus on accounting for 2 to 3 weeks before reading a book on tax. This will help you to understand the terms and not get bored while reading the provisions. Start with CA books so that you understand the application of provisions and then move to commentaries to deepen your knowledge on the intricacies of the provision.
4. Direct or Indirect- completely your choice, there is no bar that you cannot do both but it would be a difficult task to manage both in future. Another point is do not stick to a particular forum, that is to say don't just decide to practice only at HC or only SC. Tax practice starts from the day a transaction has to take place to the day it is approved by the gavel. Find a senior that practices from advisory level and also litigates (but if he litigates only till the tribunal level that is also ok, as most disputes are settled at the tribunal level).
4. Forum- I think this point needs more consideration. The writ practice is taking precedence in tax. As soon as the assessing officer or department messes up the assessees approach the HCs in writ and do not fight the case on merits to save themselves from a potential addition. If you join a senior solely practicing at HC or SC then 90% of the time you will be bound in drafting only and there is no scope for actual learning and most of the cases are referred by CAs or other advocates. Whereas, a complete professional can shape you from advisory to litigation so the forum carefully.
5. Tax as a career option- Sufficiently lucrative if you possess or develop the skills required out of a tax professional and tax lawyer. Tax is always going to be there. Yes the number of CAs in the field makes it extremely competitive but remember clarity prevails over the clutter.
Take an informed decision. Do not go with what everyone is saying. Take your own decisions and take responsibility for your decisions. There is sufficient work in every field but you just have to be good enough so that the work comes to you otherwise nobody will pay as a professional to do average quality work.
Panag & Babu
It sure is redundant to satisfy your ego by responding to your myopic view that someone’s insecurities would make them take some competitive exam.
Truly hoping that in your 60s, you won’t be going around telling everyone you once did well in CLAT. Hope you find an identity for yourself beyond your CLAT performance.
1. Knowledge Gathering and Processing: The KM team is responsible for sourcing the latest legal and regulatory updates and processing them in a way that can be shared with all firm members. The purpose here is to ensure that practicing lawyers remain updated on developments. This also builds the firm’s KM repository over time and makes research and drafting efficient in the longer run.
2. Designing courses for firm members: Almost all law firms of a certain size (and disposable resources) have internal courses for their lawyers, which sometimes also form a part of the lawyers’ KPIs. The KM team develops these courses and handles the actual training/ course delivery aspects also. This can also include sessions with external speakers.
3. Maintaining repository of firm drafts and docs: It is also common for the KM team to keep a record of all the drafts and documents prepared in the firm across all matters. This is done to ensure that the drafts and documents are available to other lawyers as reference, if and when needed in the future for other matters.
4. Cross functionality with BD and HR teams: KM and BD teams often work together on digital marketing initiatives (think knowledge focused posts, 3rd party publications, media quotes etc.) and other related aspects. KM also works with HR on preparing firm wide policies at times (though less often) and also has a role to play in appraisals (if your firm mandates KM contributions in your KPIs).
KM teams typically do not work on any transactions. Even if there are lawyers in the team, they do not practice and instead work on the things I mentioned above.
The role is a mix of research and administrative work - typically a 80:20 split between the two.
The pay is decent. KM associates usually get paid 20-30% less of what practicing associates make at the firm at the same PQE. Not a bad deal, specially considering the working hours are typically lesser (meaning overtime is usually not required on a daily basis).
As I said, the exact role differs from firm to firm. But if you’re someone who enjoys research/ want a role that is a mix of corporate and academia, this can be good opportunity for you.
Hope this helps!
The work primarily involves redlining documents, with occasional contract negotiations. There’s limited drafting exposure, and even less research work since most of the contracts are standardized.
I’m planning to move to a law firm setup within a year of experience. Would really appreciate some guidance on how to navigate that transition. I understand that I could possibly pitch myself to GC/TMT teams, but I have zero references in the industry.
From what I heard, the somebody who was working at axiom that time joined AZB as a partner and that intern was recommended by him or smthg like that.
If you don't have connections: Even if you have those skills, they probably (No, certainly) won't hire you.
They rejected deserving people after 6-7 minutes of basic HR questions and hired a client's child from▮▮▮ ▮▮▮▮▮▮ and Top ▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮▮ student. Truly ahead of the curve.......